A large group of defendants in this consolidated action refer to themselves in their submissions 1

as the “Rohm & Haas defendants,” even though they comprise an array of individuals and

entities. There is another group of defendants who did not respond to Jackson’s objections on

the issue of the December 5, 2008 hearing.

1.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARK JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROHM & HAAS COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 05-4988

MEMORANDUM / ORDER

December 4, 2008 Pollak, J. 

Plaintiff Mark Jackson has submitted objections (Docket Nos. 215 and 216) to a

scheduling order by Magistrate Judge Angell (Docket No. 204). I have reviewed the

objections, and the response of the Rohm & Haas defendants (Docket No. 217). While 1 

Jackson’s Amended and Supplemental Objections (Docket No. 216) contain a range of

detailed arguments and allegations on a variety of issues, I will decide, in this

memorandum/order, only whether to grant the relief requested regarding the contested

scheduling order.

I. Background

Case 2:05-cv-04988-JKG Document 222 Filed 12/04/08 Page 1 of 4
 Judge Angell subsequently issued her Report & Recommendation, denying plaintiff’s request 2

for injunction, on November 17, 2008.

2.

On October 7, 2008, Judge Angell scheduled a hearing for December 5, 2008 for

the parties in this case to argue the following motions – plaintiff’s motion for a

preliminary injunction and defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiff’s consolidated

amended complaint (“CAC”). In a subsequent hearing before me, requested by Jackson,

counsel for the plaintiff stated that he sought swift disposition of the injunction motion

and preferred not to wait until after a December hearing. 

On November 6, 2008, Judge Angell ordered a change in the December 5 hearing,

a change responsive to the request of plaintiff’s counsel for a swift ruling on the request

for injunction. She stated that she would decide the injunction motion without further

argument and prior to December 5, 2008. She further directed that the parties need only 2

prepare to argue the motions to dismiss at the December 5 hearing. Jackson objects to

this order and requests that I order instead that no hearing should convene. Amend. Obj.

at 13. He further requests that the pending motions to dismiss “be decided forthwith.” Id.

II. Analysis

Hearings during motions practice in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania are governed by Local Rule 7.1(f). The rule states the

following:

Any interested party may request oral argument on a motion. The

Court may require oral argument, whether or not requested by a

party. The Court may dispose of a motion without oral argument.

Case 2:05-cv-04988-JKG Document 222 Filed 12/04/08 Page 2 of 4
3

Again, I would like to make clear that plaintiff’s submissions include a number of

allegations that are better addressed in subsequent decisions. For example, his allegations that

the November 6 order is part of a pattern of conduct indicative of bias on the part of Judge

Angell are better resolved as part of plaintiff’s motion to vacate the reference of the case to

Judge Angell. Decisions on that motion and other objections will follow shortly.

3.

Accordingly, the judge deciding a motion has discretion to decide whether oral arguments

are warranted. Comment 5 of Rule 7.1 suggests, among other things, that oral arguments

are warranted where they would “significantly aid the Court.”

Jackson states that neither he nor the defendants requested arguments on the

motions to dismiss. Amend. Obj. at 1. He asserts that arguments are unnecessary

because “the claims set forth in the Consolidated Amended Complaint (‘CAC’) are

substantially uncontested” and because all the claims contained in the CAC have

undergone previous motions practice in earlier iterations of the complaints. Id. at 2. He

further contends, among other things, that the December 5, 2008 hearing merely delays 3

the progress of the lawsuit and Jackson’s access to requested remedies. Id. at 8-9. 

The Rohm & Haas defendants have responded to plaintiff’s objections. They

“defer to the Court as to whether it believes oral arguments would be helpful....” Defs.

Resp. (Docket No. 217) at 2. They have requested that, if argument on the motions to

dismiss is not held, they be permitted to file a reply brief for their motion to dismiss in

order to address contentions raised by Jackson in his response to that submission. Id. 

I find that Judge Angell’s November 6, 2008 order was proper. It was well within

her discretion under Local Rule 7.1(f) to order oral arguments on the motions to dismiss. 

I have reviewed Jackson’s CAC, the motions to dismiss, and Jackson’s responses to them. 

Case 2:05-cv-04988-JKG Document 222 Filed 12/04/08 Page 3 of 4
4.

Given the complexity of the CAC and the importance of the motions to dismiss, it is

incontestable that Judge Angell could reasonably conclude that oral arguments may be

helpful to her in ruling on the motions. Further, I do not find plaintiff’s assertions that the

CAC is “substantially uncontested” or that the claims in the CAC have been subject to

previous motions practice to be particularly accurate assessments of the state of this

lawsuit or persuasive arguments in support of his request here.

III. Conclusion

AND NOW, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s

objections (Docket Nos. 215 and 216) to the Order of November 6, 2008 (Docket No.

204) are OVERRULED and Magistrate Judge Angell’s order of November 6, 2008 is

CONFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Louis H. Pollak, J.

Pollak, J.

Case 2:05-cv-04988-JKG Document 222 Filed 12/04/08 Page 4 of 4